Doctor What

Shadows in opposite directions - now you are fully proved wrong. The question of course is are you brave enough for admitting this.

@Pre-RaphaeliteYou have not entered any reply on my post.

Very odd person. Noted. I am now sure you have learned some forum phrases and are using them all together - big shame you are not understanding any of them Of course you will never supply examples for your hot air rant. I laugh at you including yourself in list of fallacies dodged. But since you are all upset list me all or some of the fallacies an I shall make you happy with replies. I say you are lying there are not any fallacies to address.

This is what I meant - I take your correction. What?? So you defending your alternative for no explosives but then tell me nobody would find them which is what I said?! You don't have any logic.

Calm down. The idea that no explosives evidences were found is best explained that none were present than none looked for. If you think this untrue, then you think this untrue. No difference to me. I explained with simple statements. Nothing in my explanations is disingenuous - no pretence is there of less understanding than given. You have failed yo read simple words. That is telling. This is not shifting goalposts - have you learned some new expressions for use and want to put them all in one post? Your opinions are your opinions, they do not happen to be mine. I do not accept your claims of smoke and mirrors and say to you that billions of joules of falling energy doesn't need to be explosives. Yes indeed you have. You are not questioning logic but jumping up and down in a big huff because my opinion is different. Here are the posting for my original claim: Peter says: The reason they didn't find explosives was not because there were or weren't any there they didn't even look for them (admitted by the official investigation team) My claim is: Or even simpler, there was no explosives. It is far simpler and is given as simpler alternative. But the less simpler one requiring INVESTIGATORS to be told to ignore this if found. Your favourite explanation is speculation - mine is logic. All things being equal - this is passenger jets hit the building and fires make floors bow and building collapses. Unequal is being explosives must be place on floors where fires raging and aircraft strikes. I have no need to make my version as precious to defend as you seem to think.

This is the OP subject, if you make a statement of support for explosives - shape charges - then why is it wrong to assume you support the reason for these? Explain how these are placed to blow building columns inwards direction.

Calm down. This is a very amazing statement and one which does not surprise me. I am already of the opinion that you dodge questions, but for you to say bullying is absurd. It is a normal thing for debates to post questions to reach conclusions. It is normal for hoax believers to fail on answering them! And of course you cannot possibly know the alternative. But, I posted a strong video evidence that is proof for all who do have a desire to arrive at the truth. If you watch the video and cannot show how it has been produced it would tell you how wrong you are. I find anybody who does not do this to be showing very strong denial and fear for being wrong. Your expectations for images are even more so irrelevant. I have explained distance and difficulties and you have not even acknowledged these. What it appears for you is just your failure to consider all reasons for this. Why do you think it is harder for set artists to make mountains jagged? You make no sense. Nonsense arguments. Images of near subjects with distant mountains and captured correctly.

I gave Occam's Razor alternative not the speculation alternative you preferred. Best logic of all. The simplest explanation and all things are equal.

Of course, good response. Only if the vote was the other way of course it would be very important. This claim is not true, the buildings had much rubble. But please explain why explosives, the shape charges you have not explained, cause the dust and billions of joules of downforce do not. The false claim is your terminal velocity insistence. So now, all ground cleanup people must be told not to look for explosives? No reason for such a demolition. Nice dodge. Shape charges cannot work this way and whether you have big or tiny computer makes no difference to that. No planes is the dumbest idea of them all.

Thank God? Ask poster who raised this.

So now all clear up crew must be so instructed - sounds very feasible. How many more conspirators do you estimate for this?

Of course. Please indicate to me with a diagram how these are placed to make explosion go inwards on the WTC buildings. The "millions" are the ones who don't join your tiny ae911 group. But, for verification: A’17 Conference on Architecture – Chapter Update – AIA Blue Ridge "Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution’s sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support “a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7.”" Explosive force (911myths.com) Explain why building should not fall down into its own footprint. Explain why floors should pile up. Explain why this fictional floors piling up makes it topple. Explanation is kinetic force from falling section. Mass of WTC1 is 450 million kilogram! After it is falling for a second it is 20 metres per second and generates 90,000,000,000 joules. Explain why such huge force makes no dust. But answering your question takes much more detail: www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf This is a false claim. Or even simpler, there was no explosives. Sure, mention away. Tell me why it needs to be demolished. Do you remember man called Danny Joenko. I put a logic test for you. He is given a video for watching WTC7 collapse and is very surprised - he says it looks like controlled demolition. Indeed it does, but so too would support failing. But, in his surprise I ask you this, why is he surprised for a building to be collapsing when we see two others on TV - WTC1 and WTC2? The deduction must be he thinks neither are demolished, because why else would he be again surprised for another one - WTC7?

I have no issue with you making this claim - it is not relevant in the size of mountains and rilles. NASA have not used backdrops and why have you avoided the video and question? Also, your picture is Tycho crater not anywhere near Apollo 15 mountains. Apollo 15 LRV traverse 16mm film stabilized - YouTube Please explain how this is faked. Mountains are proven very far away and it is dark sky with sunlighting.

It is very simple! The explosion is going inwards with columns bending in on the buildings. Which bullshit explosives do this? False claim once again. "Hundreds" of engineers is wrong and millions of the others say so. The Dumbing Down of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth | Metabunk

Dancing Israelis (911myths.com) I ask again what evidence is to be presented about the Israelis as spies?

How many more people to execute all passengers on board - and crew too. Does pilot know about this and flies to new airbase and hopes not to be seen. This is very absurd and I am surprised Icke thinks this is even things considered. Simple is best. Crash passenger planes solves all problems in one bang. Plus afterwards, crash investigators have burnt DNA sampling.

Which part to you is coincidence? Closeness to impact points? Or? I ask you to answer this please: How do you make explosion in going and bend columns in? Shape like plane requires Israeli students on 8 floors and maybe 200 to 300 rooms. And explain why you have disregard for their later art works? Is this also coincidence for the spy cover stories?

This is just more things for going wrong. Now you must dispose of planes and all passengers - not logical. Now you must involve airbases and logs for planes to take off and people to fly these.

You are making a false question. Prove to everybody these art students are Mossad. Plane strikes on 93-99 floors not 91. The arrested Israeli people are not Gelitin artists: Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ... | HeraldScotland I have a question for anyone who thinks no planes - how do you make explosion in going and bend columns in? Shape like plane requires Israeli students on 8 floors and maybe 200 to 300 rooms. Yes, sounds very likely. These artists still work together, very impressive spy cover do you think? And of course for secrecy must use name of explosive misspelt and publish videos. Other works include: vorm - fellows - attitude, 2018, at the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: giant sculptures of feces, with visitors encouraged to put on costumes representing nude men and women[7] La Louvre, Paris, 2008, at ARC, Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris Tantamounter 24/7, 2005, a "gigantic, complex and very clever machine" created at Leo Koenig, New York Hase (Rabbit / Coniglio), 2005, a 55-meter knitted pink rabbit on Colletto Fava[8][9] Zapf de Pipi, 2005, a sculpture of frozen urine as contributed by the visitors at the Moscow Biennale of Contemporary Art Otto Volante, 2004, a roller coaster inside a gallery in Milan, Italy Arc de Triomphe, 2003, a 7-meter tall fountain picturing a urinating figure made of 2000 kg of Plasticine in Salzburg, Austria Armpit, 2002, a human elevator of Body Builders for the Liverpool Biennial Schlund, 2001, a human scaffolding of fat people at the Bavarian Theatre, Munich, Germany Die totale Osmose, 2001, a swamp surrounding the Austrian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale

This is not a comparison for features but a comparison for distance. On Earth there is ice and rain which change features with mountains. You used the Japanese Selene picture not the Apollo picture and did not address the topographic facts. They are exactly as the Apollo ones. The Apollo mountains are many miles in the distance so are small out of focus for settings used with cameras. Apollo 15 LRV traverse 16mm film stabilized - YouTube Please explain how this is faked. Mountains are proven very far away and it is dark sky with sunlighting.

I ask you what visual cues are you using for this judgement. No air and pollution or heat hazes, or dust in atmosphere. Visual cue and fuzzy distance helps: Please observe this picture below and imagine no clues of trees and snow lumps at the front. Look at clear mountain in the arctic and tell me you don't see it as very near without such clues:

No, this is noise from either charged particle hitting film or film development artefacts. Not stars. Backup plan is glorious failure and try again.

Very odd, you are using a picture from orbit of Apollo to say that Apollo at surface is wrong! This area was mapped on Selene from Japan, topographic: Matches exactly to surface picture from Apollo. If you zoom close and locally, the mountains are not sharp and jagged. Use Google Moon - works great.

I have made the incorrect part of your quote in bold type. The problem as I informed you is that long distance is not obvious without other objects or atmosphere. House Rock - Apollo 16 - YouTube "To some of the people who think the moon landing was faked, this clip is hard to explain. With no atmosphere, distances are hard to judge, which is why the background turns out to be much farther away then you think."

Hadley Rille (Apollo 15) - YouTube I suspect you are watching another youtube video in the never stopping conveyor of rubbish. Pictures taken on the Moon have nothing to tell viewers the distance to things in the image. Like trees and atmosphere haze.